Agenda item

            The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

            Jane Sampson addressed the Committee and spoke against the application in her capacity as a resident, on behalf of the residents of Preston-on-the-Hill.

 

Residents concerns included noise from increased traffic from visitors to the facility and from the bike trail itself; damage to the character of the village; damage to wild life; inappropriate use of ‘Grade 3A’ agricultural land; the narrowness of Hill Top Road in relation to its proposed use and that the project was not in keeping with a character assessment carried out by Halton Borough Council in 2009.  A petition of 60 signatures had been submitted previously to the planning department against the application.

 

Mr Stuart Rutter, the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. 

 

In response to the noise concerns, he stated that the bike trail would use electric bikes which do not make any noise.  He stated that during an 8 month consultation period, no requests had been received from residents to trial the bikes.  He confirmed that parking for the facility would be away from the village and that the whole site would be screened with trees so it would not be seen from the village.    He summarised by commenting that the facility would provide a high quality outdoor activity, which had the support of the relevant Government bodies in England. 

 

In response to the quality of the agricultural land being developed, it was commented that there was no evidence of it being ‘Grade 3A’.  Officers confirmed that the potential of tyre and traffic noise had been investigated by Environmental Health Officers who had raised no objections.  The access road ‘Hill Top Road’, leading to the parking area, had also been to consultation with the highway engineers, who had raised no objections.

 

Councillor Bradshaw raised his concerns over the proposed development, particularly with the narrowness of the access road to the site and the potential for residents to experience parking problems.  In response it was noted that in the future the Highways Department would see if the road could be widened to allow more space for residents parking and ease the passing traffic accessing the site.

 

Councillor Bradshaw wished to record his objections to the application.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application is approved subject to the following:

 

a)     The adjoining site owner entering into a Section 106 Agreement relating to securing sight lines across land not within the ownership of the applicant;

 

b)     The applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement relating to (1) securing sight lines across his land and (2) restricting the type of vehicles to be used on the land;

 

c)      Conditions relating to the following:

 

1.      Submission and agreement of a timetable and phasing plan relating to the proposed demolition of buildings and implementation of planting and landscape works including pond creation. (BE1);

2.      Submission and agreement of a construction environmental management plan and plan for the control of routeing and access/ egress of all construction traffic. (BE1);

3.       Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing. (BE1);

4.      Securing a scheme of archaeological works. (BE6);

5.      Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used. (BE2);

6.      Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of detailed hard and soft landscaping to include tree planting. (BE2);

7.      Boundary treatments to be submitted and approved in writing. (BE2);

8.      Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development. (BE1);

9.      Submission and agreement of detailed construction of ponds. (GE21);

10. Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/ commencement of use. (BE1);

11. Requiring provision and maintenance of access visibility splay. (BE1);

12. Conditions relating to the agreement and implementation of bin stores cycle parking provision. (GE15 and TP6);

13. Submission and agreement of finished floor and site levels. (BE1);

14. Conditions relating to tree protection during construction (BE1);

15. Restricting external lighting. (PR4);

16. Restricting external working and storage. (E5);

17. Submission and agreement of ecology/ habitat enhancement features including bird/ bat boxes. (GE21);

18. Submission and agreement of a woodland and pond management plan. (GE21);

19. Restricting all riders to those on a pre-booked basis and prohibiting race events. (BE1);

20. Restricting all bikes to those which are electric powered only and noise emissions with the exception of those for track maintenance unless otherwise agreed. (PR2);

21. Restricting width and areas for track creation/ layout including location, construction methods and height of any jumps or other obstacles. (PR2);

22. Restricting use of tannoy or public address systems. (PR2);

23. Restricting use of facilities building to floor space and uses as detailed. (GE5);

24. Submission and agreement of detailed dust suppression methodology. (BE1);

25. Submission and agreement of a detailed travel plan including visitor transfer. (TP16);

26. Restricting hours of use. (BE1); and

27. Restricting maximum numbers of bikes on the track to 25 at any time. (BE1)

 

d)      That if the S106 Agreement(s) or alternative arrangement is not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Environmental and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it fails to comply with Policy S25 (Planning Obligations).